The multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs)

0,95

MB

82

stron

2638

ID

United Nations Environment Programme

2002

rok

INTRODUCTION

The multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) negotiated by the world’s governments address a

wide range of collective global problems, including the international trade in endangered species,

climate change, the loss of biological diversity, and desertification.

While the pace of negotiation has been rapid in recent decades, new MEAs continue to be

negotiated (such as the ongoing negotiations on the regulation of persistent organic pollutants and

older MEAs elaborated (for example, the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate

Change).

This century will likely witness the continued proliferation of MEAs, but also increased attention to

the actual operation and impact of existing agreements.

Despite the rapid expansion and wide range of contemporary international environmental law,

relatively little is known about the practical impact of MEAs on government behaviour. Some

observers suggest that the “gap between law in books and how states act may now appear wider

than at any other time in history.” (Koskenniemi 1996). One means of institutionally assessing this

gap, and narrowing it, is to regularly review the actions of parties to international treaties. This report

analyses the institutions and processes that review state behaviour vis-ŕ-vis MEAs. It does so in

terms of four core issues:

• MEA reporting;

• The review of MEA implementation;

• The review of compliance with MEA provisions; and

• The review of the effectiveness of MEAs.

This report describes and analyses the institutions, termed “review institutions,” that are designed to

address these issues. Review institutions may be formally mandated within an MEA, or may

develop organically as the parties to an MEA learn more about underlying environmental problems,

regulatory methods, and implementation difficulties, and, in turn, adapt the institutional structure of

the MEA to new knowledge and circumstances.

A decade ago in his survey of “lessons learned in global environmental governance,” Peter Sand

(1999) noted that the review institution seems “well on its way to becoming an established

instrument of international environmental law — with a new obligation emerging for governments to

take part in a deliberate, pre-programmed process of institutional learning.” This report examines the

contemporary veracity of this claim by empirically analysing the state of the review institution

today in the set of 10 major MEAs covered in the UNEP GEO-2000 Report. These 10 MEAs

address major global problems; nearly all of these agreements have over 100 parties, and many

have over 150. The report also explains the linkages between the underlying concepts of

implementation, compliance, enforcement, and effectiveness, describes the animating theories

behind contemporary practice in international environmental governance with regard to their review,

and surveys models of review drawn from other international regimes. Finally, in evaluating the

state of the review institution today, and its likely trajectory, the report suggests some lessons

learned and policy recommendations.

1 The Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Washington, 3 March

1973. www.wcmc.org.uk/cites

2 The Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York, 9 May 1992. www.unfccc.de

3 The Convention on Biological Diversity, Nairobi, 22 May 1992. www.biodiv.org

4 The Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or

Desertification, Particularly in Africa, Paris, 17 June 1994. www.unccd.de

5 Unofficial but comprehensive summaries of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee

meetings 1-3 by the Earth Negotiations Bulletin can be found at www.iisd.ca/linkages

6 Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Dec. 11 1997

(not yet in force). www.unfccc.de